Enter your email to subscribe:

An attorney found to have made false allegations against four judges should be suspended for three years and until further court order, according to a recommendation of the Illinois Review Board.

The board found that the various statements were not protected by the First Amendment.

As to sanction

... Respondent continues, even with the benefit of hindsight, to stand by his statements as "100% correct". He expresses little comprehension of the harm caused by his conduct. While Respondent was not previously disciplined, his conduct in the four matters outlined in the Administrator's Complaint was not isolated and continued over the course of many years. He repeated many of the statements at the hearing. The Hearing Board stated, "An attorney who repeatedly takes adverse rulings in client cases personally and who is inclined to believe he was racially discriminated against whenever he feels he was treated unfairly poses a danger to our court system. This is especially true when the attorney's response to these feelings is to make insulting and offensive accusations about the court system and its judges." We agree. Respondent's conduct does not serve the interests of his clients or the legal system. We are concerned that Respondent, if allowed to practice, would continue to engage in similar misconduct if faced with an adverse ruling by a judge.

TrackBack URL for this entry:$MTTrans>

Comments

"None of the judges testified; the Attorney General's Office moved to quash the subpoenas issued upon the judges on the grounds that the judges could not testify about their judicial decisions and the Illinois Supreme Court quashed the subpoenas."

Central to the case was whether the attorney's accusations were factually correct or not. He should have been allowed to put on evidence to prove that they were. That was obviously the reason that he subpoenaed the judges and not to question them as to their decisions. Presumably he would have failed in those efforts but he should at least have been given the opportunity. So it was wrong to completely deny him the ability to question the judges. And if necessary, the judges could always have raised objections to specific questions during their examinations.